Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child singer


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There are assertions that it's covered elsewhere, and no evidence has been provided that this is a notable topic. If someone wants to redirect this, it can be handled editorially. Star  Mississippi  14:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Child singer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

PROD'ed, but contested, so here's the full AfD. Besides an entirely unencyclopedic and excessive list (with of course a lot of WP:BIAS, both geographically and in other ways) which has been removed, this is, a) a violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY and b) not even an accurate definition... There is no appropriate redirect target (Boy soprano might make sense in some cases, ex. Aled Jones, but very much not in others; and there is no general article about children singing), and while there might possibly be some sources from which to write an actual encyclopedic article about the topic of children who sing (under this or another title), I c) can't find them from a quick search; and d) there's not much content from this that would be helpful in writing a new article anyway, so starting form scratch is probably preferrable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Nominator blanked the article, and then prodded it as a dictionary entry, despite a discussion last year at talk (recognizing the obvious deficiencies in the article, and looking at solutions), that the nominator did not participate in. When asked to discuss it in talk, they then blanked the article again, nominated it for AFD, and failed to notify either anyone who has ever participated in the discussion or worked on the article in almost 20 years. This appears to be WP:GAMING to me. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The above is a patent WP:PA which makes no sense. The article consisted of A) a pointless and systematically biased list and B) the current lead sentence. I am not obliged nor required to participated in talk page discussions about an article which consists solely of a lead sentence dictionary definition. If you don't like it, you just don't have to follow my edits around; and particularly not come around and accuse me of "gaming the system". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, User:RandomCanadian, that you take a simple statement of facts as a personal attack. Yeah, I got the year wrong - thank you for notifying me, I have correct my post. Please no more personal attacks, or editing other people's posts. Thank! Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're accusing me of bad faith... 'nuff said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just stated the facts. I didn't make any suggestions of bad faith. If you find what I described as bad faith, then perhaps that's your subconscious speaking to you, not me. Can you please notify the other participants in the discussion. Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be WP:GAMING to me is self-explanatory. There's already a big bright red "this article is at AfD" tag. I have no duty (in policy or through common sense) to notify everybody or anybody who participated on discussions on the article's talk page (and considering those people rejected the very obvious idea of moving the article to a title which appropriately describes its content [not that that would have solved all the problems, but it at least would have solved one of them], I wouldn't see why we would want to indiscriminately notify them). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While you are not required to notify, it is generally considered courteous to contact main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion - one might even use the word "duty" to describe such a courtesy! I'm not fullying parsing the use of both the conditional and a double-negative in your last sentence, but I assume then that you wouldn't object to me notifying those who participated in the move discussion. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see why you would want to contact people who didn't even want to change the title, much less address any of the other fundamental problems with this. As for the article's "main contributors", they all seem mostly inactive, so not like there's much point in contacting them anyways. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I really haven't looked at the discussion much - of course one just one side - obviously one would also contact those who wanted to change the title. I'm not even sure which side would go which way on this ... I'd guess that those who wanted move it to a list would have been more likely to have opposed deletion - though I've given it little thought as the motive would obviously be to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus! Nfitz (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an unsourced article with no sources. We have better more specified articles that cover more focused aspects related to this topic. This could be an encyclopdic topic, but I would want to see a well based in reliable sources article that says substantial things about the topic in existence before we throw it into main space.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are to have an article it needs to be under a title such as "professional singing by children". I also think that children before voice changes due to puberty singing is a different topic than legal minors singing. Clearly just a list of some people who sang in some way (hopefully at least limited to those who did so in a very public way, but exactly what public performance points does someone have to meet to so qualify). Michael Jackson would clearly fall under this topic, I am less sure about people who began their career at 16 or 17. I am also less than sure about people who did a few paid local venue gigs as 15, but didn't release an album with a record company until 18.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The other issue is that the list had a clear recency bias. Children singing, in some way or another, even in what could be considered a professional fashion, existed long before the 20th century (Bach was a chorister in his youth; Mozart's Apollo et Hyacinthus was sung at its premiere by... young choristers; then there's the famed girls from the Ospedale della Pietà, ...). And of course it entirely misses the topic of non-professional children singing (for ex. in more generic educational contexts ). Without reliable secondary sources to write about this, though, this is just me collating information from my own practical knowledge of music and music history, and borderline OR, so not grounds to have an article like this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - what about redirect to Treble voice? Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that the topic met NLIST before blanking, and now it's just a worthless stub. Avilich (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.